Captain Ed of the blog Captain’s Quarters continues to embarrass himself. He just “updated” his post about Gorelick’s 1995 memo with this sterling analysis:
The Deputy AG (Gorelick) issued a policy statement directly to the OIPR [Office of Intelligence Policy and Review ] in 1995 (the “wall” memo) dictating the policy regarding intelligence and coordination with law-enforcement agencies. The DoJ certainly dictated what the FBI could and could not do in any case, and the “wall” memo would have precluded them from coordinating with other agencies regardless of their own disposition — and the FBI was the only national law-enforcement agency available for that kind of assistance.
This is completely wrong. The Gorelick memo imposed no restrictions on information sharing between the FBI and the Department of Defense. It only addresses information sharing between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department. Repeating a false claim doesn’t make it true.
Maybe I should say it in a way a pirate like Captain Ed can understand: Ahoy, the Gorelick memo imposed no restrictions on information sharin’ between the Fbi and the Department o’ Defense. It only addresses information sharin’ between the Fbi and the criminal di’ision o’ the Justice Department. Gar, Where can I find a bottle o’rum?
For good measure Captain Ed throws in an insult to ThinkProgress readers: “If the denizens of Think Progress really cannot connect those dots, no amount of evidence will suffice to dent their dogmatic worldview.”
Yeah. We’re the ones with a problem.
You forgot the gratuitous “YARRR, ye scurvy dogs”.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:19 pmhahahahahahahahahaha
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:19 pmhttp://www.snopes.com/military/marvin.asp
Bob Keeshan, later famous as television’s “Captain Kangaroo,” also enlisted in the U.S. Marines, but he did so too late to see any action during World War II. Keeshan was born on 27 June 1927 and enlisted two weeks before his 18th birthday, several months after the fighting at Iwo Jima. In a 1997 interview, Keeshan explained that he “enlisted in the U.S. Marines but saw no combat” because he signed up “just before we dropped the atom bomb.”
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:23 pmJudd - you ARE the ones with the problem. You threw a hissy fit over the August 6th memo which offered no specific detail as to where Bin Laden might attack, but are silent when it comes to Clinton turning Sudan’s bin laden offer or Gorelick’s conflict of interest on the panel. You politicized it to begin with. Please don’t cry now.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:24 pmSounds like your doing a fair share of crying yourself DilEnema. Back those claims up sometime, will you?
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:28 pm>Sudan’s bin laden
Bzzzzzzzzzzzz… Myth.
and do you REALLY want to bring up “conflict of interest” with this admin?
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:28 pmno specific details eh? didn’t mention hijackings, skyscapers and NYC eh? funny, you must have gotten the Republican-endoresed redacted memo…
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:29 pmThe pirate alphabet has three letters.
Ayyyye! Argghh! Aaaayye!
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:29 pmTora Bora
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:29 pmI think that has to be the best ThinkProgress post title ever.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:31 pmToo funny, Judd. Arrrgh!
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:31 pmIs anyone watching Inside 9/11 on NG? IT could connect some of the dots you liars have been working OT to discredit. The war was global before W even came to office. It’s time you looked at the broader picture of the War on Terror.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:32 pm#9 Tora Bora - yawn. Was Bin Laden offered or did our military screw up like John Kerry claimed?
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:32 pmThere is a new rallying cry for the right. “Remember the right side of the Blogsphere!”
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:33 pmDid you watch Dead Wrong on CNN DilEnema?
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:34 pmWhy yawn at Tora Bora, DilEnema, or are you tired of reciting the same lame excuses for it?
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:35 pmWorth pointing out:
Until recently, I had assumed that “Captain Ed” of “Captain’s Quarters” was a veteran who had earned the rank of Captain.
He’s not. He’s just a big Star Trek fan. And no, I’m not making this up.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/about.php
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:35 pm#15 - why would I watch something echoed in the MSM for two years now?
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:36 pmYou may finally get it through you thick skull, DilEnema. That sounds like a good reason to me.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:38 pm“Thus I am the blogger with his head in his behind.”
Cap’n Crunch
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:38 pmNED, how slowly can I say this? Kerry didn’t say our military screwed up at Tora Bora. How could they? They were sitting on a transport ship off the coast while Bush sent in the Afghan militias.
Now tell me why the terrorist training camps in Pakistan are off limits to us. Is that a strategic military decision, or a political constraint on our military?
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:38 pmSounds like a country haboring terrorists to me. How’bout you Dil?
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:40 pmI smell a Time Magazine “Blog of the Year” award in his future.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:40 pmNEDilemna, meet reality:
“the CIA field commander for the agency’s Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught. “He was there,” Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK. Asked to comment on Berntsen’s remarks, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones passed on 2004 statements from former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks. “We don’t know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001,” Franks wrote in an Oct. 19 New York Times op-ed. “Bin Laden was never within our grasp.” Berntsen says Franks is “a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was.
…That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a “strategic disaster” because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/
You were saying?
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:41 pmI’m sure Franks was busy investigating reports that bin Laden fled to Iraq.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:42 pmCap’n NED and Cap’n ED, they are bailing as fast as they can, but they went to sea in a leaky boat. It reminds me of Gilligan and the Skipper.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:42 pm#15 - why would I watch something echoed in the MSM for two years now?
Did you watch the 2005 Inaugural speech?
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:44 pm“…& woe be to them that disobey….”
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:45 pmStar Trek fan?
Gene Roddenberry is turning over in his grave. He is gonna beam down here and zap the cap, and his phaser won’t be set on stun.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:48 pmAnyone who still thinks it’s cool to be a Republican still wears garishly colored polyester leisure suits.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:50 pmOh, shit! Hugh Hewitt! No wonder he’s a dumb as stump!
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:52 pmIs it just me or does Captain Ed remind anyone else of Ignatius J. Reilly selling hot dogs in his pirate outfit? His worldview is entirely too complex for the rest of us to comprehend. Don’t get me started on the whole valve thing.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:55 pmIs anyone watching Inside 9/11 on NG?
I actually watched part of it last night and kept wondering if it was produced by Bush and his 9/11 Whitewash Commission for all the propaganda and misinformation contained therein. I’m still waiting to see any actual facts that show bin Laden and his supposed cronies pulled that attack off. Almost four years later, and we’re still waiting for the supposed evidence. (And bin Laden’s video confession doesn’t count as non-government sources translated it as inconclusive when ascribing blame to bin Laden for 9/11 - ie, he never said “yes, we did this”)
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:55 pm#22 - fine, you win. We should invade the Saudis and Iran. At least bomb their major cities. I am all for it. Are you?
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:58 pmCapt’n Ed: “Are ya RED’ee kidees?”
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:59 pmWe could have sanctioned Saudi Arabia then Dil, not bend over backwards for them like BushCo did.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:01 pm‘Cap’n Ed’ Aubrey: “‘Vast ye there! Load with grape, lash the yardarms, take up the billets!”
And as the bloodthirsty Whigs swarm up the larboard tumbledown from their galleys, Cap’n Ed scurries below change his soiled breeches, hide the porn dvds and wrap the signals book, codes, orders and daily RNC blastfax talking points in oiled sailcloth, weight with 20 lb shot and toss overboard.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:03 pm“We should invade the Saudis and Iran.”
Well, congratulations on finally signing up for active military service.
Otherwise, I’d have to ask, “With what army?”, since ours has been run into the ground by the Iraq distraction. But apparently, you finally agree that it was a distraction, so I guess we’re making progress…
Of course, there’s still that urge to solve every possible problem by bombing brown people, but we’ll work on that.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:07 pmWe should have grabbed every Saudi with connections to bin Laden (by any mens necessary), and followed the Taliban into Pakistan rather than let them regroup and give us the deadliest summer in Afghanistan since ‘01.
You are clearly not all for it if you support Bush.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:08 pm#38 - can’t we just launch an air campaign against them like Clinton did in Kosovo?
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:10 pmTND ->
http://WWW.GOARMY.COM
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:12 pmDil#41,
You’d need Wes. Clark in charge to pull that off well.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:14 pm#42 - Just kill them with an air campaign like Clinton did. Why are you against that?
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:14 pm#43 - fine, get Clarke then. Bomb Iran and the Saudis and dare them to harbor terrorists. Would that satisfy you?
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:15 pmI have a hunch if Bush did launch a much needed offensive against the Saudis or Iran the terrorist sympathizers in this blog would be against that, too.
You people have no credibility because you don’t believe in military force.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:17 pm“#38 - can’t we just launch an air campaign against them like Clinton did in Kosovo?”
I agree, no-fly zones and stringent sanctions do have a way of rendering tinpot dictators impotent, don’t they? An emphasis on air campaigns also does a good job of minimizing US casualties. Unfortunately, despite your endorsement of Clinton’s approaches to overseas military operations, the people currently in power rejected those approaches and “pre-emptively” invaded Iraq with a bunch (though still inadequate for the stated task) of ground troops. So let’s you and me work on getting these fuckups out of power first, then we can go back to the Clintonian approach, okay?
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:19 pmNot immediately Dil, but heavy diplomacy beforehand would need to be utilized and exhausted.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:20 pmBehold….
The Northwest Dilemna. Mr. Kill Brown People Everywhere from the comfort of a sofa with bombs from the air.
Racist. Coward. Brownshirt.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:22 pmTerror sympathizers? There you go again Dil.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:22 pm#47 - there you go again.
No matter what Bush does it will never be enough diplomacy for you people. Just attack him because you don’t beleive in war. Don’t pretend like their is something he can do to please you. There isn’t. You people aren’t rational.
Can anyone name one policy they agree with George Bush on? ONE?
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:26 pm“You people have no credibility because you don’t believe in military force.”
Wait, I thought we worshipped Bill Clinton, and were enthusiastic about General Clark. Yet we don’t believe in military force…while supporting going after bin Laden in Afghanistan? I’ll admit that I’m slightly skeptical that conducting airstrikes against civilian targets in every Muslim country we can find would necessarily reduce Muslim terrorism. Must be because I’m some kind of pacifist or something. Or not a rabid 12th-century crusader with 21st-century military technology, which amounts to the same thing.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:26 pmI think the Captain is one of the folks Winston Churchill was talking about when he said, “Don’t talk to me about naval tradition. It’s nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash.”
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:27 pmCan anyone name one policy they agree with George Bush on? ONE?
Comment by The Northeast Dilemma
… and, if you’re such a True Believer, why are you sitting at your little desk, typing on your little keyboard? why aren’t you out there in Iraq, doing your part to fight the GWOT?
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:29 pmLove the dorky picture of him as well. Hey, can we get Northeast Dilemma a membership at Snopes? It would save him a lot of embarassment but he wouldn’t have nearly as much to post about.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:29 pmThis is all kinda irrelevant.
I mean, I have three words that puts all this into perspective: “My Pet Goat.
Enough said.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:30 pmLike letting the weapons inspectors do there job before pulling them out because we were itching to bomb Iraq? Is that good diplomacy DilEnema?
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:30 pmMDS - what can Bush do to please you? Don’t be the problem - help solve it. You refuse to propose anything beside invective. Here’s your chance? How would you fight the war?
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:30 pm“Can anyone name one policy they agree with George Bush on? ONE?”
I thought his original demands to the Taliban were spot on, and the original strategy to have Afghan forces take the cities and American soldiers take the countryside. Of course that strategy was changed at Tora Bora, and that was a mistake.
I also heard Bush is going to allow mountain biking in all national parks. I like that. Small potatoes, but it’s still a policy I agree with.
Satisfied?
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:31 pmHow would you fight the war?
Convicting Bush of war crimes would help.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:31 pmBTW LOSERS - If only those fighting for America in Iraq are allowed to have an opinion on the war, then we should all shut up and let them decide what they want to do. Here’s a hint though folks - a large majority of military men and women don’t think like you and like Bush. So, stop with the third grade - you can’t be pro-war unless you fight. It makes you look assholes.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:33 pmTND’s using the typical wingnut strategy: When his butt’s getting kicked and merely repeating the same slanders isn’t working, he tries to change the subject!
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:34 pmYes Dil, Bush’s pre-2000 campaign policies of being against nation building and smaller government sounded good, except that I knew he was full of it. SURPRISE! I was right, he was full of it.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:34 pmReal diplomacy involves more than expressing loathing towards some dictators, kissing others, and presenting unsourced bad intelligence at the UN.
To answer, with what army? Perhaps we can just send in Blackwater security teams. They have all the good equipment anyway.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:35 pm#57 - I’d drop Chimpy into Falluja and make him call Al-Zarqawi come out and fight ‘mano e mano’ - winner takes all.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:35 pmIf only those fighting for America in Iraq are allowed to have an opinion on the war, then we should all shut up and let them decide what they want to do.
Nice straw man, Neddy.
But I think the actual opinion being expressed here is closer to this: that anyone who advocates war but is not willing to serve in said war is a flaming hypocrite.
Not that you don’t have the right to be a flaming hypocrite. You do. But it is not a good thing to be, nevertheless.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:36 pmEven if you were right about servicemen not agreeing with Dem/Lib point of view (of which the reality is mixed), I would not support a military-ruled government. Would you? If so, thats not democracy.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:39 pmSo, stop with the third grade - you can’t be pro-war unless you fight. It makes you look assholes.
Actually, that was the prevailing attitude during WWII — you know the conflict Bush/Cheney like to compare this to? If a young man of fighting age walked down the street in NYC during WWII, he would hear much worse than the chickenhawk insults we throw here. So, congatulations on calling everyone who pitched in on WWII an asshole.
Let’s look at you. You are a war booster, but won’t fight. If anyone points this out, you call them an asshole. Do you know what that makes you?
If you are Republican, it could make you President.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:39 pmMaybe Chimpy could challenge Al-Zarqawi to a mountain bike race?
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:39 pmCan anyone name one policy they agree with George Bush on? ONE?
Comment by The Northeast Dilemma
Not one. I can name one policy of Castro’s I agree with however. He got tough with the Catholic church, and he was raised a Catholic. I would pull their tax exempt status, as with all of these pseudo-religious cults.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:40 pmOMG you weren’t kidding.
“It’s a nickname bestowed on me by a former girlfriend during a time in my life when I was a huge Star Trek fan, and had named my first car the Carship Enterprise….”
inhale….BWWWAAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:41 pm#64 Saddam’s idea of dueling pistols with Bush is sounding better right about now, isn’t it? Possibly the one good idea he ever had.
And why didn’t Zell Miller endorse it?
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:41 pmI’m quite proud of the fact I disagree with bush and you on EVERYTHING! Most of us are.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:42 pm#68,
Or a pretzel eating contest?
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:42 pm#68 surely you wouldn’t put the fate of our nation in Bush’s mountain bike skill???
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:43 pmOr spelling-bee? Spell the word “nuclear”…
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:43 pm#74 well I thought he had a better shot at it than with a Segue.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:44 pm#22 - fine, you win. We should invade the Saudis and Iran. At least bomb their major cities. I am all for it. Are you?
Comment by The Northeast Dilemma — August 22, 2005 @ 2:58 pm
Mexico first. We can drill the other countries later.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:45 pmOr spelling-bee? Spell the word “nuclearâ€â€¦
Comment by Skid
or “dissembling”
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:46 pmI agree with Dubya that big rocks witht the Ten Commandments on should be allowed in schools and government building. Provided of course that non-compliance with said commandments by the government are grounds for impeachment.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:47 pmI’ll take medical exams the Cap’n and NED dig for $300.00, Alex.
It makes you look assholes.
What is proctology?
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:48 pm#60 Ultimate Loser NED - My son served in Iraq for 1.75 years. Got that? He and his company knew why they were there: oil. Got that? How many in the Army hated Bush? Nearly everyone my son worked with, killed with, and had die next to him, including the commanders who knew better than to voice their opposition to King George. Got that?
Where is your proof for your statement? I bet you don’t have it. You know why? You haven’t any proof. Only perceptions of something you know next to nothing about.
So until you get your scrawny a** to Iraq, you’re nothing but a Chickenhawk. Just like those whom you worship. Fool.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:49 pm“Can anyone name one policy they agree with George Bush on? ONE?”
Well, I agreed with the administration’s stated desire to apply fuel efficiency standards to SUVs to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but they dropped that. Still, it was something.
I approve of the President’s refusal to take punitive actions against illegal aliens, despite the screaming of people like Rep. Tancredo. I confess, however, that I deplore his unwillingness to retaliate against the businesses that thrive off of employing illegal aliens.
I approve of his quiet endorsement last fall of same-sex civil unions at the state level, since I too have a kneejerk reaction to use of the term “marriage.”
I approve of his toppling the Taliban.
In general, though, no, I don’t like his “borrow and spend” economic policy, or his “destroy the army’s effectiveness” foreign policy. Or his cozying up to dictators while preaching democracy. I admit that this is my fault.
However, using the willfully mendacious argument, “Okay, wise guy! You were against invading Iraq from the beginning, and now we’ve fucked it up! So what are YOUR ideas?” is something that is on your shoulders.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:50 pmPraise Jeebus!
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:51 pmIt’s going to be funny how you fiberals look so stupid defending Jamie Gorelick, once the truth comes out.
This also explains the document stuffing of Sandy Berger as well.
Kiss off ‘06 elections, fiberals.
:o)
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:51 pmI agree with Bush when he says that the American “folks” are um, “good”.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:51 pmOh, and that “alot of good people are working hard.” I agree with that. Except that cutting brush on his ranch while 50 American soldiers die in Iraq isn’t my idea of hard work.
Testify, Brother!
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:51 pmCan anyone name one policy they agree with George Bush on? ONE?
Yes, I can name one policy I agree with Bush on….
I agree 100% with his policy to fire anyone involved with the leak of a CIA operative’s identity.
Too bad he didn’t agree with the policy too.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:51 pmIt’s going to be funny how you fiberals look so stupid defending Jamie Gorelick, once the truth comes out.
This also explains the document stuffing of Sandy Berger as well.
Kiss off ‘06 elections, fiberals.
:o)
I think you guys need some new material. This stuff was old last year.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:52 pmI suppose the question could be reversed and it’s answer will be very short, “Name one thing the Bush administration has done right or for the good of the country?”
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:53 pm“It’s going to be funny how you fiberals look so stupid defending Jamie Gorelick, once the truth comes out.”
No no no… we’re just awaiting the outcome of an ongoing investigation. We won’t prejudge the outcome based on reports in some media. And if anyone is found to have committed a crime, they will be held responsible.
You like that?
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:55 pm#83 - It’s going to be funny how you ReichWingNuts look so stupid defending King George Wanker Bush once the truth comes out.
Kiss off the ‘06 elections, Empire Builders!
[to paraphrase in similar effect]
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:55 pmIt is always “connect the dots” when the facts don’t support you, eh wingnuts? funny that.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:55 pmClinton! Kosovo! Bomb Saudi and Iran! Name ONE thing you agree with Bush?! I’m not a chickenhawk! Waaaah - sob-sob….
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:55 pm#88 you know their answer to that. He started the war in Iraq. Hooray!
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:55 pmYeah, he started the war, but he didn’t do it right. Ask Gen. Shineski.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:57 pm#83 “Once the truth comes out.” Too funny. Haven’t you been reading what Think Progress has said? The “truth” is OUT. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t Gorelick would have been nabbed by no? Wasn’t it John Ashcroft that first made these charges against Jamie? And wasn’t that more then a year ago? How long does it take for the “truth” to come out?
Of course we are now finding the truth about “ABLE DANGER”. The Pentagon now says that their was no info on Atta before the 9-11 attacks. Find it on Drudge. I am sure that FOX will correct their shilling for Curt “The boy who cryed Wolf” Weldon just as they corrected the David Rosen gaffe pushed by Oreilly and Morris.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:58 pmThere’s an interesting dialogue on AD taking place in the comments Intel Dump. (LTC Shaffer himself has surfaced to say a few words).
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:00 pmNED Bush’s approval rating is down to 36%…Now I am sure if you asked, you would find many people on this site that agree wiith that.
But as for (A)polluting our air, (B)wasting our surplus, (C)NOT taking our country to war against UBL,(D)employing crooks and liars (ABRAMS and ROVE) and (E)depending on CHALBRI for our intel, are all things that we libs DON”T agree with the Preznit on.
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:02 pmBush job approval :
Aug 2005 36% 58% 6%
July 2005 42% 52% 6%
Jun 2005 42% 53% 5%
May 2005 43% 51% 6%
Apr 2005 44% 50% 6%
Mar 2005 47% 48% 5%
Feb 2005 49% 45% 6%
Jan 2005 51% 44% 5%
Dec 2004 50% 45% 5%
Nov 2004 51% 43% 6%
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:02 pm54
In fact lets get the RNC a membership to Snopes. That way when the sheep go in to get their daily talking points, they will actually be getting facts and not urban legends.
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:04 pmFrom the size of it, looks like they taught Dubya how to serially auger businesses into the ground, and to get hansomely rewarded for these successive disasters. But it could just be that Dubya slept through the classes and got his “gentleman’s Cs” anyway….
The difference between Vietnam and Iraq? Dubya knew how to get out of Vietnam…..
Cheers,
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:08 pm#95
Case in point, blind sheeple following thinkprogress.
:o)
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:11 pmNortheast Dilemma:
“I have a hunch if Bush did launch a much needed offensive against the Saudis or Iran the terrorist sympathizers in this blog would be against that, too.
You people have no credibility because you don’t believe in military force. ”
You say that with little knowledge of your own Bush’s true dealings. He would never attack the Saudi’s, they’re his best buddies and former, current, and future oil pals.
We’re not against force, just for force being used for the right reasons. Iraq was much less a threat as a source of terrorism than Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Pakistan were then or are now.
Ask yourself then why we chose Iraq. If you answer with anything relating to 9/11, you’re just buying the lie and paying little attention to the man behind the curtain…
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:11 pmCan anyone name one policy they agree with George Bush on? ONE?
Ummm, can anyone name a single thing (ever!) that Dubya hasn’t f***ed up royally?
Thought so…..
Cheers,
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:14 pmUmmm, can anyone name a single thing (ever!) that Dubya hasn’t f***ed up royally?
Laura?
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:18 pm101: The difference between the think progress followers and you and NED, is that we add some facts to our rhetoric and you two do not.
Two things: Ashcroft brought up the Gorelick issue a while back, why hasn’t it led to anything if Jamie is indeed “guilty”?
And why has the Pentagon now said that Weldon and Schaffer are full of it?
This is where you lend you “facts”.
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:26 pmIraq isn’t Vietnam. Vietnam was a jungle; Iraq is a desert. Dubya checked a map before invading just to make sure they weren’t the same thing.
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:28 pmC’mon, liberals! Many of you are responding to Northeast Dilemma, who clearly possesses less intelligence than an amoeba. This is a crime. Not his psychotic ramblings. But the fact that his psychotic ramblings routinely cause a number of liberals to waste their time and energy responding. Yes, it is “fun” and a nice diversion from work to boot. But we all know that good liberals have many, many more important things to do — i.e., resolving our inner-party Iraq differences before 2006. So, when it comes to Northeast Dilemma … LET IT GO! YOUR COUNTRY WILL LOVE YOU FOR IT!
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:31 pmAsk Captain Ed to post the memo. Then he does not have to tell us about it and would it means.
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:31 pmElse tell him to head for deep water and thread water.
#50: Bush never used diplomacy - he was planning to invade Iraq since day one of his presidential term. The China spy plane incident set him off course for a while, but fortunately for Bush, his propogandists were able to make Americans think Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
Go read the Downing Street Memos and then tell me Bush wanted to solve the problems diplomatically. Or perhaps, when Bush leaned into a roomful of senators the March before the war and said “Fuck Saddam - we’re taking him out,” he didn’t mean what he said?
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:36 pmHear, hear #107.
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:40 pmTo that I add:
“Arguing with a fool proves there
are two” — Doris M. Smith
#103: Jeff Gannon
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:41 pmNEDilEnima,
Not that anything will get through your skull, but no one ever said that only those serving in Iraq were entitled to an opinion. What we have been saying is, if you are so damn supportive of this war, what the hell are you doing sitting at your keyboard. We aren’t supportive of the war on truth, therefore, feel no compuction to sign up! What a fat head!
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:50 pmOh, and NED, can you name one thing that GW has done correctly in the area of foreing policy? Rather than try to find one thing he can do for us (as if he would) name one thing he has ever done for anyone other than himself and his cronies!
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:52 pm111, The “chickenhawk” argument is dishonest. It is dishonest because the principle of republicanism is based on freedom of choice about behavior (as long as that behavior is legal) as well as freedom of speech about political issues. We constantly vote on activities with which we may or may not be intimately involved. We vote on police policy, though few of us are policemen; we vote on welfare policy, though few of us either work in the welfare bureaucracy or have been on welfare; we vote on tax policy, even if some of us don’t pay taxes. The list goes on and on.
By your logic, none of the TP gang should be allowed to defend Cindy Sheehan unless you are willing to get off your asses and go to Crawford.
August 22nd, 2005 at 5:05 pmGood point CC. Bush’s supporters voted for the idea that we have plenty of troops and don’t need any more.
And you also voted that they have plenty of equipment and we can borrow against our children’s future for the entire war budget.
So this conflict is not like WWII at all, when this country put every resource it had into the effort. You voted that we can fight this war with minimum resources and minumum boots, so as not to impose upon your SUV lifestyle.
Thank you for making that point. Now go shopping in Disney World, which is all your President has asked of you.
August 22nd, 2005 at 5:10 pmCC, NED. If it makes you feel better, I think you are perfectly entitled to express your opinion that this war should be fought by our National Guard and Reserves. They don’t need you and would probably put scorpions in your boots the way you go on about liberals anyway. Go shopping instead. You deserve it.
August 22nd, 2005 at 5:13 pmOf course, in return, I think you should respect the right of others to express their opinions that you are a bunch of cowardly chickenhawks sending other men to die for your pigheaded misconceptions of the world.
August 22nd, 2005 at 5:16 pmcynical,
I totally respect your right to call me a chickenhawk, even if you are completely wrong.
August 22nd, 2005 at 5:29 pmGood. I don’t think I have, but others will.
August 22nd, 2005 at 5:36 pmI’ve read Captain Ed’s post and the link by Glenn Reynolds. There is certainly speculation there, but it seems to me that the speculation is about the likely effect of Gorleick’s memo at DoJ and DoD - not whether or not it was circulated in both spheres. To the contrary, it appears that DoD attorneys were included in the memo’s distribution. That would make sense if one were trying to implement a consistent policy across the intelligencxe and law enforcement communities of the day.
With all of the heat generated on both sides by the Able Danger revelations, one point seems to have been universally missed. Too much information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement may be a bad thing, just as too many information sharing barriers may be.
Not every matter that comes to the matter of either community is a matter of national security, and both communities need to be able to distinguish between information that has national security implications, and information that relates only to typical law enforcement matters.
I really don’t care about Jamie Gorelick. I care about getting our information gathering and information sharing policies right. In order to do that we have to look at the Gorelick memo and the Able Danger revelations, just as we did the August 2001 PDB - but doing so does not constitute a “smear.” It’s part of defending America from all enemies, foreign AND domestic.
August 22nd, 2005 at 5:56 pmToo much information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement may be a bad thing, just as too many information sharing barriers may be. - Blue State Red
I agree … sometimes “information” can be misleading. Organizations have division of labor. It is often a function of the top brass to decide who needs to meet with whom in order for information to be shared.
Bush & CO are trying to hide behind a non-existent wall — but even if the wall did exist, the management could always work around the wall. 9/11 was not enabled by a wall, but by a failure of management.
I guess it’s like how I, a math major, cannot cipher: our MBA president cannot manage an organization.
*
As to the chickenhawk argument — of course you can support a war without having to fight in it. But if you are supporting a war which is draining our troop resources, then, unless you are willing to do something about that drain — go fight yourself, pay more in taxes or something … you are being a hypcrite. Especially if the war was a war of choice, as Iraq clearly was.
But the original chickenhawk argument referred to something a wee bit more specific: namely people who dodged a draft but supported the (Vietnam) war (and later other wars). It is one thing (maybe it’s hypocritical, depending on the number of troops in the military, etc.) to say that you support a war but are not going to fight in it. It’s entirely even worse if there is a draft — when people are forced to go to war whether they support it or not — and you use your resources to weasle out of the draft … but you still claim you support that war (and you support future wars of choice).
People like GW Bush, Rush Limbaugh, etc., have no moral authority (what does the right have against the concept of moral authority?) to support a war after they supported fighting a war they were unwilling to fight themselves, even as others were being drafted for said war.
Clinton at least opposed the war he refused to fight in … and being working class, had to actually work damned hard to get out of fighting (and it was a considerable risk for him … he couldn’t buy his way out of the war as a Bush could). Clinton thus had the moral authority to lead us into war because at least he faced a difficult choice when he avoided the war. What kind of choice did GW Bush face? It woud be one thing if GW Bush was of age when there was no draft, but there was — and he got out of it, lucky ducky. And he didn’t really face a choice about it.
So what authority does he have?
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:25 pm#120: President Bush has the authority derived from having won the last election. That’s how it works in America.
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:33 pmActually, BS Red, that’s not how it works in America. George Bush, like all of America’s Presidents before him, is an employee of the American people. The American people are not Bush’s employees, nor even his subordinates. He has no direct authority over any of us. Hatespewing rightwingers were oh-so-quick to point this out when questioning Bill Clinton’s authority as President. Have they now conveniently forgotten, or are they perhaps being just a tad hypocritical?
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:39 pm#120: I was 1A in 1970, then 1S, then I drew a mid-250s draft lottery number, knowing all the time that I could never have passed a military physical. So I guess that makes me a “chickenhawk” with no “moral authority” right? I’ve just lost my First Amendment rights, according to you lefties. Well, at least I wasn’t skiing the Rockies with ol’ “bad back” Howard Dean! What penalty have you imposed on him?
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:43 pmIron hawk, you’re guilty of being just like the anti-clinton crowd in the 90’s. What’s that make you? A hyprocritian. Are you getting even? Make you feel good?
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:48 pmBlue State Red (#124),
Did you support the war? Were you unfit to fight in it, or would you have not passed the physical because of a technicality — in which case you could have gotten into the military with an appropriate signed waver.
Look, my working-class uncle got drafted. Would have wanted to avoid the war? Yes … but he wasn’t from enough money to be able to really do so. So he went to ‘Nam. For someone from Clinton’s background to have avoided the war took gumption, which ya gotta respect. OTOH, my dad, who came from a bit more money (not that my dad’s parents were even on their own much more than working class, but there was at least family money), happened to have flat feet. He was 4F. He could have nonetheless gone once he got his degree (the military was looking for professionals at the time), but he chose not to go (it was a choice … he could have gone in spite of having a flat feet). Was he a chickenhawk? No … even though he was a Republican and generally a conservative one, he was 100% against the war feeling it was just a ploy by the bullet manufacturers to sell their product (remember, it was a Republican president who first publically used the phrase “military industrial complex”).
Dean, having not supported the war, was at least not a chickenhawk. But if you support a war, which your country cannot win with the army it has (remember Rumsfeld’s comments), you do have an obligation to not be a chicken and sacrifice a bit for the cause.
Anyway, neither I nor any liberal is out to say that you have no first amendment rights nor that the Pres. doesn’t have de facto authority.
The issue is one of moral authority. If you went to Sunday School (or at least the one I did), you’d know what I mean …
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:58 pmGod, are all rightwingers cowards and lovers-of-lies, or just 99% of them?
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:58 pm“George Bush, like all of America’s Presidents before him, is an employee of the American people.”
You need to go back to high school civics. I suppose it’s true that presidents are federal employees, but they are very special employees. They can’t be disciplined or fired like other employees, and Bill Clinton has made it almost impossible to impeach them.
When presidents win election they acquire the authority to speak and act for all of us. They, and no one else, get to exercise the powers of state, including those of commander in chief. and typically their authority increases when they win re-election.
Now, John Kerry is also a federal employee of a special kind, but that doesn’t mean he speaks or acts for you and me, unless we are his constituents. No matter how idiotic Kerry may be, there’s nothing I can do about it, unless he runs for president.
I have seen the argument made that Kerry has almost as much moral authority as Bush, since he received almost as many votes. But, of course, that doesn’t help the left very much on this issue, because Kerry voted for the war in Iraq in 2002, and he said in 2004 that he would vote the same way again.
So where, exactly, does that leave all the “moral authoritarians” on the left? Spewing negative attacks against America, her military, and their commander in chief. And casting vulgarities and obscenities at anyone who supports , her military, and their commander in chief. Hmmm, some morals.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:02 pmRe #128:
Bill Clinton has made it almost impossible to impeach them.
He did no such thing. He was impeached on trumped up charges and then aquited of said charges. It was the Republicans who made impeachment seem so silly by abusing the process for political purposes.
When presidents win election they acquire the authority to speak and act for all of us. They, and no one else, get to exercise the powers of state, including those of commander in chief. and typically their authority increases when they win re-election.
Ignoring the fact that Bush didn’t really win the 2000 election and possibly also would have lost a fair and adaquately monitored election in 2004, what you say is correct. But this authority is political, not moral. Go back in time about 8 years and ask a Republican about the difference … they’ll explain it to you ;)
Kerry voted for the war in Iraq in 2002, and he said in 2004 that he would vote the same way again.
Untrue … he voted to give the President a stick to use in negotiations. It wasn’t his fault that the President is not a man of his word and wasn’t negotiating in good faith anyway. Interestingly, Kerry is being denigrated for supporting the President … what does that say about what some thing of supporting the President?
Kerry has a lot more moral authority than Bush, though, as far as wars are concerned. He fought bravely in a war from which he could have weasled out. Bush supported the war, but didn’t fight … who has more “moral authority”?
Spewing negative attacks against America, her military, and their commander in chief
Except in as much as the President is the ceremonial “head of state”, how is criticizing the President’s views or actions criticizing America? Were the Republicans, including GW Bush, who seriously questioned Clinton’s use of military power, “spewing negative attacks against America”? Of course, not. While some of us may disagree with GW Bush, et al.’s attacks, they had every right to make them (except in as much as the attacks were disengenuous, it does say something about GW Bush, et al., now doesn’t it?) … so why are we so anti-American for pointing out the emporer has no clothes, so to speak?
Last I looked, democracies thrived because criticism of the state was encouraged which led to a better government. So how is criticism of the state now un-American? When did America cease to be America?
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:16 pm“The issue is one of moral authority. If you went to Sunday School (or at least the one I did), you’d know what I mean…”
Actually, I teach Sunday School and work with the youth (junior and senior high students) at our church. It’s a BIG church, too, so that should really scare you. And when I recently explained to my kids how George Bush’s policies have liberated more people (especially women and girls), and given more oppressed people the right to vote and raise their families as they please, than anything done by his critics, they all thought that was a pretty cool thing.
These kids are amazingly perceptive. Even though most of them are uncomfortable with the idea of going to war, they all understand that there is a struggle between good and evil in the world, and they care which side wins. They don’t want to see Iraqi women and children suffering as they did under Saddam and the Taliban, and they support the idealism of Americans fighting to free those people.
This is why I believe that, when push comes to shove in any given election, the left will always lose. Every generation of Americans cares about advancing freedom, and they will never support retreat.
PS: None of my kids are terribly impressed by Cindy Sheehan. They all think she’s a nut.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:20 pmGeorge Bush’s policies have liberated more people (especially women and girls), and given more oppressed people the right to vote - Blue State Red
Liberated … how? Are you referring to Iraq? BTW - whatever Saddam’s faults were (and they were many), for a Middle Eastern despot, his record on women’s rights was pretty good. Iraqi women stand to loose a lot in the kind of theocratic state that seems to be forming.
And what kind of right to vote is it that Iraqis have when a lot of the political discourse is still controlled by the US? And in Afghanistan, the situation is very unstable and hardly free, except in small islands of central government authority. In parts, the Taliban are back … and in other parts, other militias have control. People are hardly liberated.
p.s. I’ve never taught Sunday School, but I was a Teacher’s Aid … it was quite a good learning experience for me, considering I want to go into teaching. Perhaps I should consider teaching Sunday School?
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:31 pmBS, how can your kids be perceptive about a country they have never seen? Sounds like you told them something, they thought it was cool. Doesn’t sound like they question what you teach (God’s word) or engage in critical thinking. You tell them what religion says, and they follow.
It would be interesting to see if they still agree with you in ten years when they go off to war in the mideast.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:36 pmI swear to god BS, you really need to go to Iraq to see how “liberated” the people are. You don’t need to fight, just go as a tourist. Maybe you could take the kids and give them a real life lesson in Bush’s policies.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:37 pmQuestioning authority is a fine American tradition. You do it by debating the pros and cons of policies on their merits. You do not do it by pretending that every policy you disagree with, or anyone who supports those policies, is a knuckle-dragging neanderthal (apologies to any neanderthals in the blogosphere). You don’t do it by calling people chickenhawks or any of the other vile names used as ad hominem attacks by the so-called “progressives” on this site.
A good example from history, and one that puts the shoe on the other foot, is Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan. There are, and were at the time, strong arguments on both sides of the question. None of them involved calling President Truman a “war criminal” or a “mass murderer.” They involved weighing all the known intelligence and all the known political and military risks, and making a judgment in the best interests of the American people. Which is exactly what President Bush has done, I might add.
The fact that the world’s major intelligence organizations were all wrong about WMDs makes our losses more painful in some respects, but it doesn’t mean we were wrong to invade Iraq, and it doesn’t mean our troops have died in vain. Millions of people have been liberated. Millions of women and girls can now get educations and vote. Millions of families can now live their lives without worrying that a son or brother will “disappear” in the middle of the night. Any critic of the Bush administration’s policies, on their merits, must confront the fact that none of these things would be true if America had adopted the policies of the left.
I think that is why there is so much name-calling by the left. It reflects an absence of ideas and a vacuum of realistic alternatives as to how we should confront terrorism. And it reflects an absolute refusal to acknowledge the good that has come from President’s policies.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:40 pmSaddam’s record on women’s rights was pretty good!!!!???? Right! I would like to hear how rape and kidnap fits into that record. I do believe we have a Saddam appologist here.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:42 pm“whatever Saddam’s faults were (and they were many), for a Middle Eastern despot, his record on women’s rights was pretty good.”
I’m not going to comment (torture chambers) on this (executions). I think (mass graves) it speaks (disappearances) for itself (rape rooms).
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:44 pmDon’t forget, Saddam was OUR nasty dictator first!
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:51 pmTell me your trolling nut jobs…who was president when Saddam gassed his own people and what was his reaction?
Good call not commenting, and don’t mention this to our allies Jordan (torture chambers), Saudi Arabia (public beheadings), Uzbekistan (mass slaughter of protestors), Pakistan (Daniel Pearl), or Egypt (9/11 hijackers).
Relative to the neighborhood, Ronald Reagan judged Saddam to be an okay guy. Why can’t you accept that?
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:52 pmConcerned Conservative wrote,
The “chickenhawk†argument is dishonest. It is dishonest because the principle of republicanism is based on freedom of choice about behavior (as long as that behavior is legal) as well as freedom of speech about political issues.
What sophomoric nonsense. The principles of republicanism that you lay out are perfectly consistent with identifying specific people as chickenhawks. Think of it as freedom of speech about a political issue. You’ll have to try harder if you want to convince anyone that it’s a dishonest argument. (Hint: try arguing from first principles than by analogy.)
Thank God no conservative has yet come out sounding like a sanctimonious Voltaire Jr., at least as far as I’ve read.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:56 pm“Sounds like you told them something, they thought it was cool. Doesn’t sound like they question what you teach (God’s word) or engage in critical thinking. You tell them what religion says, and they follow.”
LOLROTFLMAO!! These kids range in age from 13 to 18 - and you think they don’t question me!? They are bright,and they pay attention to the news. They question me ALL the time!
I never would have brought up politics at all except the kids challenged me with a whole bunch of questions on a number of topics. Our discussion was prompted by the question of how to be a positive Christian influence in the world. One of my points was that it is easier to tear someone down that to lift them up, which also is a lesson the left could stand to learn.
That’s why I think it is incumbent on the President’s critics to say what they would or wouldn’t have done to respond to 9/11 and to deal with radical Islamic terrorism. How do you define terroism? How would you treat captured terrorists? Are all terrorists enemy combatants? How would you interrogate enemy combatants? Would you apply physical pain and threats to save lives? What rules of war would you apply? What rules of engagement would you establish? How would you deal with hostage takers? With hostage beheaders?
That’s just a short list of the questions we should be debating. Remember, it’s a lot easier to tear someone down that to lift them up.
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:03 pm“Relative to the neighborhood, Ronald Reagan judged Saddam to be an okay guy.”
Compared to Tehran (1979) and Beirut (1982-83), a nukeless (1981) Saddam probably did look like the lesser of two evils. That’s 20/20 hindsight. But if President Reagan had used 20/20 foresight, and invaded Iraq 20 years ago, the left would have been even angrier with him than they are now with Gearge Bush.
You can’t have it both ways.
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:10 pmActually, Reagan knew damn well about the dissappearances, torture chambers, and mass graves at the time. Saddam released film of his purges, for chrissakes. How can you pretend no one knew? Amnesty International knew. Rumsfeld knew. You better believe the Kurds knew.
I’m not talking about having it both ways. The choice is not which country to invade.
You have some good questions for the opposition. It’s too bad Bush never asked those questions. Do you like all Bush’s answers to your questions? Is torture a Christian thing to do?
It is easier to tear some one down than build them up. A lesson Karl Rove and GW Bush both desperately need to learn. Actually, Bush is learning that now in Iraq.
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:33 pmBSR - “The fact that the world’s major intelligence organizations were all wrong about WMDs “
Please stop lying:
U.S. Allies Were Not Persuaded By U.S. Assertions on Iraq WMD
June 9, 2003
Institute for Science and International Security
http://www.isis-online.org/ publications/ iraq/ usallieswmd.html
Despite the Bush Administration’s assertions, allies of the United States did not fully agree with the Administration’s assessment on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
For example, Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a “propaganda furor.”2 Specifically targeting the CIA report, Putin said, “Fears are one thing, hard facts are another.” He goes on to say, “Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress.”3 However, Putin was apprehensive about the possibility that Iraq may have WMDs and he therefore supported inspections. The Russian ambassador to London thought that the dossier was a document of concern. “It is impressive, but not always.convincing.”4
French intelligence services did not come up with the same alarming assessment of Iraq and WMD as did the Britain and the United States. “According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam’s Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time.It [the French assessment] contradicts the CIA’s analysis.”5 French spies said that the Iraqi nuclear threat claimed by the United States was a “phony threat.”6
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:34 pmWould that Bill Clinton were the beneficiary of such considered historical judgment.
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:41 pmBSR, the kids you teach are age 13-18? Then most likely they will fight war in the mideast. Especially if you manage to convince them how great things are going over there, and what good things we are doing with our killing machines of Christian influence.
Join the army. Open a school. Then open a guy’s head with a .223
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:46 pmDavid(#33)
a) I don’t know who Ignatius J. Reiley is.
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:51 pmb) Captain Ed’s views aren’t too complex for me
c)”Some of my best friends were liberal arts majors”.
“Is torture a Christian thing to do?”
Christians have struggled for centuries with questions about war and the use of force. The just war doctrine provides part of the answer, but it clearly does not provide the whole answer.
The best I can do (being only a mere Sunday School teacher, rather than a brilliant christian ethicist) is to say this: if one is fighting a just war, then one must try to achieve victory as quickly and painlessly as possible, understanding, of course that war is inherently a painful and destructive enterprise.
I believe we are fighting a just war in Iraq. Almost by definition a just war is one in which forces of good and evil are contending in a fight to the death. As a Christian, I believe that God cares who the victor will be in such a struggle. If I could end a war, and achieve victory over the forces of evil, by committing an act of torture, I believe I would do so. I think this was the moral question President Truman weighed in the balance 60 years ago. I agree with the decision he made then, as I agree with President Bush now.
Please understand, however, that I would not expect to enter heaven in such a case. God would have every right to cast me into hell for the evil I had done. President Truman may be there now. I believe George Bush honestly fears for his own soul today, even though he is convinced that he has chosen the right course. But, as Christ Himself said, “Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his friends.” If I had to choose between my eternal salvation and the earthly salvation of millions of people from war, I hope I would have the courage to risk the former to achieve the latter.
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:53 pmLook, if BSR thinks this is a just war, then he is beyond reason.
August 22nd, 2005 at 9:06 pm“BSR, the kids you teach are age 13-18? Then most likely they will fight war in the mideast.”
One of my former students has already been to Iraq and returned safely home. Another former student will be leaving soon for his basic training. Both of them are absolutely fearless. I am in awe of them both, but that doesn’t blind me to the dangers they have faced and will face.
By the way, I once urged my own son to consider going into the service. He talked to a recruiter, but the idea didn’t take at the time. Then he got a fairly dangerous idea of his own - he will soon become a firefighter.
What’s a father or mother to do? Our children grow up and then they’re not children anymore. But the fact that they choose a dangerous occupation doesn’t mean we should force different choices upon them. It doesn’t mean that we should blame their superiors if they are injured or killed. If my son dies fighting an arson fire it will be the arsonist, not the mayor, who will be at fault.
Death is an omnipresent risk in any dangerous enterprise. That doesn’t make the enterprise wrong or immoral. It just means that, when our children choose to embark on such an enterprise, we have to give their choices a special measure of respect. And we owe it to them to support the leaders who send them into harm’s way.
August 22nd, 2005 at 9:14 pmThe fact that the right feels a strong need to blame someone else for the illegal war proves they know they are going down!
August 22nd, 2005 at 10:07 pmAnd we owe it to them to support the leaders who send them into harm’s way.
That’s an interesting sentiment.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:47 pmBSR, I must be reading a different Bible to the one you have. I can’t remember Jesus advocating the murder of civilians, let alone (gosh!) “unsaved” souls. Laying down your life for a friend is a noble thing to do and I’m pretty sure that even non-Christians would do it. What I can’t stand is when a supposed Christian tries to rationalise a pre-emptive war against a country already in ruin.
I liked your Sun Tzu-esque idea of war, that no successful war is ever lengthy or overly destructive. But, since it looks very likely that we’ll leave Iraq a smoking pile of rubble, not to mention a few thousand men short (not to speak of the tens of thousands of Iraqi dead) can you really say that we’re doing all we can to hasten this conflict’s end?
And, as I remember, torturing those Iraqis and stacking them naked in pyramids, had the opposite effect of ending the war sooner. As I recall, it actually galvanised the insurgency. And, when we commit acts of depravity such as was committed at Abu Ghraib, don’t we become more like the people we claim to be fighting? Here’s an easy way to end this war (at least for us)- LEAVE, the people have spoken! The longer we stay there the harder it will be for God to discern the “forces of good” from the “evil-doers” in this Apocalypse of yours.
Or are you one of those Rapture folks? Do you think Christ needs to have His Second Coming greased with the blood of a hundred thousand Iraqis (and counting)? Do you want our armies to be the agents that unlock Abaddon from his abyss? Are you one of those people who thinks that Israel should be placed in importance above America? If you answered ‘no’ to the above questions, then why do you still support this war?
I’m not asking you to enlist, that’s never going to happen and I don’t blame you, you might die. I’m just going to appeal to whatever sense of decency and Christian love you have left. Turn the other cheek. Check yourself for sin before you cast that stone of yours. Please, please don’t corrupt the youth that surrounds you by trying to get Jesus to endorse this most unholy of wars. And if you really want to save people from damnation, don’t support killing them before they’re “saved”. I really don’t understand “Christians” like you.
For the record let me just say that as our Noble Leaders in this Crusade Against Violent Extremism and Evil-Doing Barbaric Death-Loving Terrorist Killers keep saying that al-Qaeda is a perversion of Islam (as though they are themselves Muslims), George Bush’s vision of a pseudo-democratic world brought about by perpetual war is likewise a perversion of Christian ethics. PERIOD.
August 23rd, 2005 at 12:54 amIf, for some reason this country was invaded, say because someone didn’t like Bush (can you believe someone not liking him?)if you fight back, are you a terrorist? Or a patriot? If you went over to the invader’s side are you a traitor? Or a patriot? This is over-simplified for a complex situation but the reasonings change depending on what angle you’re looking at it from. Certainly, during the American Revolution, we could of been called terrorists, and insurgents, or patroit and loyalist.
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:40 amNow, I’m sure there’s an influx of Grade A terrorist, thanks to GWB.
Blue State Red…
Under Sharia law, rape and gang rape are acceptable punishment for women. Once the act has been committed most women who are victimized this way will commit suicide since being raped makes them defiled in the eyes of their culture, and dishonors their family.
Nice to see that Sharia will be alive in the new Iraq, and the supposed torture chambers and rape rooms that you triumphantly declare are gone will now be ensconced in law by the government we helped to create.
Progress indeed…..
As to your Christian *credentials*, what a load of crap you spew. Any time innocent people are killed it is wrong, no matter who does it. Remember terrorists and Saddam are bad because they killed innocent people, so why aren’t we bad when we do the same thing? Oh that’s right, we’re helping them to be free, so that they can live under Sharia and so that the women can be gang raped as punishment that is ensconced in the law of the land.
You are a moral relativist, a term you Christian types love to bandy about when you don’t realize that you are the perfect epitome of the monacre you attempt to anoint others with.
Good Day.
August 23rd, 2005 at 3:19 amOur discussion was prompted by the question of how to be a positive Christian influence in the world. One of my points was that it is easier to tear someone down that to lift them up, which also is a lesson the left could stand to learn.
I’m in awe of BS’s impressive Christian witness by lifting people up instead of tearing them down.
Oh, that’s right.
He’s too busy endorsing torture and war crimes, because since this is a “just war”, anything goes.
I believe we are fighting a just war in Iraq. Almost by definition a just war is one in which forces of good and evil are contending in a fight to the death. As a Christian, I believe that God cares who the victor will be in such a struggle. If I could end a war, and achieve victory over the forces of evil, by committing an act of torture, I believe I would do so.
You’re a fucking Nazi.
If I